I have work to do but I guess some Friday morning rage tweeting is in order first. @nytimes @anemonanyc

"A Problem for College in the Fall: Reluctant Professors" A Problem for College in the Fall: Reluctant Professors

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/us/coronavirus-college-professors.html?smid=tw-share

As others have already pointed out, the framing from the beginning is terrible: *faculty/instructors* who have a completely logical desire, given the ongoing pandemic and our completely inadequate response, to not get sick/get other people sick are somehow a/the problem?!?!

The story notes that 3/4 of colleges/universities will be returning to in campus in the fall. The Chronicle story linked to for that has data for only a fraction of U.S. institutions. This also needs to be broken down in terms of different kinds of schools, residential, CC, etc.

The first faculty member mentioned is a 70 year old emeritus professor. Useful for the framing, sure. And certainly this person is absolutely entitled to not want to come back to campus. But that's an *emeritus* faculty member. They actually don't have to. Talk to front line!

Refuse. How many of us will refuse. Am I being too pedantic? (Isn't that what we do?) First of all, we absolutely deserve the choice not to get sick/get others sick. Second, it's not some petulant decision. It's completely logical and warranted, given the situation.

And at William & Mary and at all Virginia institutions.

https://www.thepetitionsite.com/565/225/998/quotthe-path-forwardquot-william-amp-mary-faculty-and-staff-request-for-information/

Even if a school could/did "take all the right precautions," would that be enough? Absolutely not, because colleges and universities cannot manage a pandemic when the state and its citizens aren't doing what they need to be doing. We're at the mercy of those two groups.

Yes, if older people are more at risk of getting sick and/or dying, of course it's logical for them to want to stay away. But younger people can still get sick and they can still spread it. It's completely logical for us to want to stay away too. It's the responsible thing to do!

I'm not necessarily a scholar of rhetoric but this framing! That we have bodily autonomy and final say over our own health, and that we need to divulge personal information to justify staying home during a pandemic. Yes, so sweeping!

Perhaps the highest priority should be doing what we can to stop the spread of a potentially lethal virus?

And states are not fortresses either. Students come to my institution from around the country.

Ugh. And not a single mention in the article of why, in the face of a very much still growing pandemic, colleges and universities are so eager to talk about in person learning. Of course it's irresponsible. But they want/need money! That's the key factor not being discussed.

What an absurd article. Sure, there is a real news story here to report about faculty/instructors and the possibility of in person instruction this fall. But not the way it was framed and discussed here. This was such a classic example of vague "neutral" reporting.

I get it. It's not an opinion piece. Reporters shouldn't be advocating for particular positions in a news article. But framing it as it was here? I mean, the headlines in the Times over the past days have been about the greatest number of cases, spikes, etc. That's the context!

But instead the story here is about "well, gee, some faculty seem to not want to come to campus." I wonder why.

One last thought, since it's relevant more broadly. What's really missing from this piece? Any discussion of responsibility. What does it look like to be a responsible person in the world? Today. Right now. Especially a reasonable, informed responsible person. During a pandemic.

Nope, sorry, not done yet. Also missing? Contingent faculty, graduate students, and staff. Talk to these people! Talk to unions!